1Wine Dude interviews Parker

Money Quotes…and their translations.

"Secondly, I think conscientious wine bloggers have a chance of becoming bigger and bigger, drawing a larger audience, and being gratified by their success in the number of people they reach. They are certainly not going away, and even the worst of them may hang around longer than they deserve because of our low brow culture that feeds on scandal, controversy, and polarization irrespective of any merit to these issues."

Conscientous = bloggers who have no opinion and/or agree with Parker, or like every free wine that comes their way.
Low Brow Culture = Anybody who is not Robert Parker. For he is the ONLY voice of wine.
Scandal, Controversy & Polarization = Legitimate gripes with the way Parker and his cohorts engage in business.

“The subscribers seemed to appreciate it, even though we lost some very good non-subscriber content, we also eliminated all the jerks and troublemakers who didn’t care about wine, but simply wanted to divide people’s tastes into convenient black and white boxes.”

Jerks = all of us who don’t agree with anything posted on that board that goes against party lines.
Troublemakers who didn’t care about wine = People who care incredibly passionately about wine, but don’t agree with you or your party line.

"The First Serious Wine Blogger": The 1WineDude Robert Parker Interview | 1 Wine Dude" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. So much for taking a new path.

“Big angry world scary! Make go away!”

I was lined up for the interview but he didn’t like my questions . . .

Guess that I am a jerk and a trouble maker.

My lack of caring about wine must have been missed with the Penfolds Grange vertical this past weekend.

The second paragraph is rather disturbing, but no more so than your characterization of the first paragraph.

Damn jerks and troublemakers. They post stuff like this:

And this:

And the crowd laughed. Except for one.

It’s all disturbing…but glad I could disturb as well as Parker.

How would you characterize the first paragraph?

Dumb-founding.

I still purchase many wines in order to corroborate the tasting notes with those from samples that were sent to the office as well as from barrel tastings and in-the-bottle tastings at wineries and in viticultural regions.

So now we are at nice, unquantifiable “many.” Which means more than 2.

A.

I wouldn’t, as it’s fairly straighforward. There are some very good blogs that are worth reading from time to time. Then there are others that pander to the lowest common denominator and/or the mob desire to see things torn down.

It has always been so, from before there were famous wine critics, bloggers or even 24-hour infotainment news channels.

You don’t read between lines much or refer back to what people said in the recent past do you? I do and that’s why I think most of this is a crock of steaming . . . .

“looking at that Bloggers Conference, it does look like a big and free sloppy kiss and then some from the California wine industry…with much more than minimal hospitality offered…love to see some transparency from the bloggers(how many of them are paying for travel,car rental,hotels and meals?)…” - Robert Parker

“or should I say blobbers since they are the source of much of the misinformation,distortion,and egegious falsehoods spread with reckless abandon on the internet…” - Robert Parker

"no doubt I miss some very fine producers as do others,but their trade associations may have had it with the independent press in search of just the best….and need to garner support from somewhere…by targeting the independent and more established press…it may help bloggers’ readership…the public sucks down anything perceived as “scandal’…even if the story is totally bereft of any investigation or fact checking…” - Robert Parker

That’s not fair. Everyone knows ‘many’ is more than 3.

Also I know and respect Joe, and he got some good edgy questions in there, but the interview was more Larry King than David Gregory.

Talk about spin. Sheesh.

Well, our numbers ran about 500 to zero stating it was ridiculous. Either way, I don’t care how he spins it, because it made this community larger and more dynamic! (Even WITH all these crazy Burgophiles!)

Well it’s not like you don’t have a dog in the fight Mr. Fass.

I do…and my weakness is calling out hypocrites. So a lot of meat for me. It’s like Tiger Woods choosing who interviews him. I think Dr. Vino would have done a great job and he is not as “controversial” as say me, Keith, VLM, Alice etc.

I would have asked him why he said those things and does he think things are different now and are there room for voices that are different than Parker, that might one day exceed his popularity.

Well, yes. After the fact, when there were only subscribers left. Anything else would be like expecting Sarah Palin to carry the Democratic primary in Iowa 2 years hence.

" . .and of course,and bloggers can’t continue to exist without wine-related advertising(we do and will continue to do so)…"- Robert Parker

“but that conference sounds like a California wine trade junket to further the interests of the vast California wine industry that feels slighted by coverage from the more established press….as always there is a simple solution for wineries feeling ignored….make better wine…it will get attention faster than you ever dreamed….fascinating list of sponsors under-writing all the costs for that event…not one of them pro-consumer….all of them pro wine-selling business….” - Robert Parker


And WHY does he like Vinography so much? Because Alder is about as controversial as Chuck Scarborough.